Author Topic: 2008 Pricing and Extended License Adjustments (Read 14261 times)

Peiling · « **Reply #25 on:** December 08, 2007, 07:06 »

my sales were better one year ago.....

now its so much less....so ...hmm...

zorki · « **Reply #26 on:** December 08, 2007, 09:50 »

Quote from: hatman12 on December 07, 2007, 20:02

The price increases allow Getty to switch RF corporate customers to iStock. There are millions of corporate accounts worldwide with big spending budgets - iStock doesn't need the once in a while or ordinary Joe customer.

Are you kidding me! That's exactly the market they should be going after, the millions if not billions of people that have an occasional need to put a paper together for something be it a term paper or church newsletter or whatever. Microstock has opened the world of stock to the masses and they really should advertise more to the mainstream...

lisafx · « **Reply #27 on:** December 08, 2007, 14:43 »

Quote from: hatman12 on December 07, 2007, 15:23

I would have liked to have seen an increase in the XS price from 1 credit to 2 credits - I get cheesed off whenever I see those 24c commissions.

Know what you mean. And better yet are the .16 ones.
Still, I think it helps their marketing a lot to be able to say "Images for as little as a dollar". If they raise the XS price I think there will be more of a backlash...

lathspell · « **Reply #28 on:** December 08, 2007, 19:42 »

Quote from: hatman12 on December 07, 2007, 15:23

I would have liked to have seen an increase in the XS price from 1 credit to 2 credits - I get cheesed off whenever I see those 24c commissions.

A year ago you got these 24c for an S (~800x600px) sized image. The XS was (as lisfx wrote) probably only established to have a "1 credit" image size at all. Raising the royalties for XS IMO would make the XS size pointless so I'm pretty sure this will never happen ...

snem · « **Reply #29 on:** December 09, 2007, 07:04 »

I think this raise prepares the road to the "megapixel upgrade":
8 MP --> Medium
12 MP --> Large
16 MP -->XLarge
What do you think?

snem · « **Reply #30 on:** December 09, 2007, 07:07 »

Quote from: madelaide on December 07, 2007, 19:04

Credits will range from 0.97 to 1.30, same as today, although packages will change.

but credits don't range from 0.95 to 1.20 today?

sharpshot · « **Reply #31 on:** December 09, 2007, 07:17 »

Quote from: snem on December 09, 2007, 07:04

I think this raise prepares the road to the "megapixel upgrade":
8 MP --> Medium
12 MP --> Large
16 MP -->XLarge
What do you think?

I don't think so. 6mp is fine for most purposes and I don't think this should be sold as a small image.

vonkara · « **Reply #32 on:** December 09, 2007, 10:31 »

I think they will add some "super extra large" for example the 1dsMIII. Because Istock whit all older pictures will lost incomes for each downloads.

Pixart · « **Reply #33 on:** December 09, 2007, 10:47 »

Quote from: Peiling on December 08, 2007, 07:06

my sales were better one year ago..... now its so much less....so ...hmm...

But, Peiling - have your sales grown every where else? If so, is this an indication that Istock is losing customers?

madelaide · « **Reply #34 on:** December 09, 2007, 14:39 »

Quote from: snem on December 09, 2007, 07:07

but credits don't range from 0.95 to 1.20 today?

I read it here
10 credits cost US$13 -> 1.30 per credit
1500 credits cots US$1450 -> 0.97 per credit

Regards,
Adelaide

AAC6D63 · « **Reply #35 on:** December 09, 2007, 18:14 »

The business is settling down after a period of upheaval. The microstock sites which survive 2008 are going to be charging more over time. They'll need to in order to fund the sort of infrastructure and management costs required to maintain and service collections of millions and millions of images. These are real businesses now and starting to mature.

A big collection costs more to operate than a tiny collection. Ultimately - the more images in a collection, the more people who have to be employed to maintain it. The more successful a site the more it costs to run.

I predict that some sites won't survive 2008 - they won't get their next round of funding. The credit crisis will affect their ability to find new investment. I'd be thinking first about the 2nd and 3rd tier sites. But ultimately there will probably only be room in the market for 2 or 3 viable large RF stock collections. At the most.

iStock will do really well. Being, already, way ahead of the game. And I agree with the people who say that ultimately iStock will be folded into Getty as the de-facto RF brand.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #36 on:** December 10, 2007, 00:01 »

Quote from: AAC6D63 on December 09, 2007, 18:14

A big collection costs more to operate than a tiny collection. Ultimately - the more images in a collection, the more people who have to be employed to maintain it. The more successful a site the more it costs to run.

I predict that some sites won't survive 2008 - they won't get their next round of funding. The credit crisis will affect their ability to find new investment. I'd be thinking first about the 2nd and 3rd tier sites. But ultimately there will probably only be room in the market for 2 or 3 viable large RF stock collections. At the most.

iStock will do really well. Being, already, way ahead of the game. And I agree with the people who say that ultimately iStock will be folded into Getty as the de-facto RF brand.

I see a few problems here.
1) The microstock sites have increasing economies of scale. The more images in the collection, the less it cost to maintain it (per image).
2) The "credit crisis" isn't an investment capital crisis. There is still lots of liquidity in the business loan and investment market.
3) The "only room for 2 or three" assertion I believe is completely off the mark. The only time you see 2 to 3 big players in a market is when there are significant barriers to entry. There are few barriers to entry in the microstock market. That's what Getty has failed miserably to understand here and why I wouldn't touch Getty stock with a ten foot poll. I do agree that Getty's plan is to fold iStock into their business eventually as the RF brand, but I think that's a huge mistake.

They've raised prices at iStock over the last year and a half enough to drive a lot of their original clients to others photo sources. $32.50 for a vector is getting to be prohibitively expensive for the mom and pop operations (the target market for iStock). By increasing prices so much, and adding corporate accounts, it is clear that they're positioning themselves for larger clients and effectively cannibalizing their own Getty.com customer base.

sharpshot · « **Reply #37 on:** December 10, 2007, 00:03 »

Quote from: AAC6D63 on December 09, 2007, 18:14

The business is settling down after a period of upheaval. The microstock sites which survive 2008 are going to be charging more over time. They'll need to in order to fund the sort of infrastructure and management costs required to maintain and service collections of millions and millions of images. These are real businesses now and starting to mature.

A big collection costs more to operate than a tiny collection. Ultimately - the more images in a collection, the more people who have to be employed to maintain it. The more successful a site the more it costs to run.

I predict that some sites won't survive 2008 - they won't get their next round of funding. The credit crisis will affect their ability to find new investment. I'd be thinking first about the 2nd and 3rd tier sites. But ultimately there will probably only be room in the market for 2 or 3 viable large RF stock collections. At the most.

iStock will do really well. Being, already, way ahead of the game. And I agree with the people who say that ultimately iStock will be folded into Getty as the de-facto RF brand.

I disagree with this. There are free sites and sites that don't sell many prints that have huge collections of photos and have been around for years. The top six microstock sites are making money and are likely to survive. I read that LO were close to breaking even a while ago and they are one of my lowest sellers. There might be room for 10 to 20 sites. There is a big market and we don't know yet how much it will expand. Sites with relatively low sales don't have to pay out to all the contributors who don't reach the minimum payout level. I would think that as the collections increase in size, there is more of this free money.

There will be casualties along the way but it looks like sites can survive if they can get some reasonable sales going.